Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 983444)

Carl;

The lawyers will dutifully look at all of this, and like it or not, they will give us the legal answer.

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 983472)

Legal answer, how about their legal OPINION. Only a judge can give an answer (which is usually a binding opinion)

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 983466)

It's early, if you had said Chic-fil-a breakfast chicken burritos, I'd not even finished. I'd been in the truck and off to Chic-fil-a.

That said. Am I wrong to think there's a chance? Whether I'm pessimistic or optimistic at even given moment aside over what comes out in May, there's a chance ALPA will be go after this, right?

Because the way I see it, I think I agree with the MEC. The 07APR ruling does not give us anything to grieve, it was STS about representation. But it opens the door and that's what we've been screaming about- the door is open now go through it!
[B]
If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.


And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 983332)

I'm tired of statements like this. Screw APA. We need to fight our own battles. I've heard statements from our fellow pilots saying that if the United/Continental contract is not significantly better than our current contract, then we will have very minimal contractual gains. Whatever happened to taking care of ourselves?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 983466)

It's early, if you had said Chic-fil-a breakfast chicken burritos, I'd not even finished. I'd been in the truck and off to Chic-fil-a.

That said. Am I wrong to think there's a chance? Whether I'm pessimistic or optimistic at even given moment aside over what comes out in May, there's a chance ALPA will be go after this, right?

Because the way I see it, I think I agree with the MEC. The 07APR ruling does not give us anything to grieve, it was STS about representation. But it opens the door and that's what we've been screaming about- the door is open now go through it!

If the MEC is saying what I hope they're saying, they want to use this ruling to go after the definition of "air carrier" such that from now on holding companies are seen as STS and thus preclude anyone from trying this RAH style ploy to do an end around scope.

If that's the case, you'd no longer have to fight each regional one at a time because you could, with a change in definition, automatically wipe RAH, American Eagle and anyone else who is tries this holding company ploy out of DCI for violating our scope.

And the last thing a DCI wants to lose is guaranteed profit. I believe the IBT knew this when they presented their case and thus made it so very specific about representation. And to me the NMB was toying with their ruling, "yeah, totally STS, in every account, but since you only asked about representation then we'll keep adding that caveat of "when it comes to class or craft." The NMB just put the ball on the T.

Originally Posted by Adolphus Coors (Post 983459)

I don't agree. My dues money is my involvement. Flying the line is enough for me. I don't need to come home and worry about what the association is doing. Every contract that we have voted on has been approved by our MEC before we voted and for the most part were approved by the MEC. I pay dues for the services provided by the association. Clearly with the amount of dues we pay we expect professionals to represent us. Unfortunately the association looks like a bunch of idiots getting their butts kicked by the Harvard boys.

As far as rep not knowing section 1........Well that's just plain ignorant. This type of threat has been around since 2003 when Chautauqua Airlines created Republic Airlines to get around APA scope. ALPA should have seen this then and never approved our section 1 as it was written. In my opinion ALPA is either:

1. Ignorant,
2. Arrogant,
3. In bed with the wrong team, or
4. All of the above.

Either way I'm sick of the ever revolving disappointment I feel with ALPA. I think DPA is a very good option everyone should take a look at.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 983398)

If you intend to leave the door open for a subsequent legal challenge, you don't send an email to 12,000 people stating that the NMB ruling does not give rise to a breach of our agreement, you keep that ruling in your pocket for use later on, if necessary.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 983398)

As I said, intent of the parties is the most important thing in contract law, and our union is showing that they intended for the occurrence of an RAH type of situation by their inaction and rationalization of what, in my opinion, is inexcusable.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 983398)

I guess my next question is, what are we showing our union leaders when we continue to allow them to do this?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 983428)

Let me be among the first to give credit where credit is due. The initial after action report of the 19 April Special MEC Meeting looks positive, with our Association taking reasonable proactive steps to enforce our agreement.

Glad to see us tackling the protection of our charter flying. Also, they are looking hard at this RAH situation.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 983465)

I agree. The jury is still out and we can push for this. It will be a grievance, then the NMB, then court.